You make a very compelling argument. I'm really going to have to think on that one.

icekatze wrote:

It has been my understanding that capitalism works best without resource scarcity as it requires continuous growth to remain healthy, and begins to break down when that growth slows. Pre-scarcity, one can exploit untapped resources, increase their value through work and make profit. During scarcity, untapped resources dwindle and people turn inward and exploit other people in order to continue making a profit. During resource scarcity, people begin to hoard wealth which can make the situation worse as the means to resolve the situation taken out of play.

Despite usage of the term "post-scarcity", there is no actual concept as "pre-scarcity". Scarcity is the resource concept that something is finite, and has great enough demand that people are willing to pay a cost to acquire it. Post-scarcity should probably be renamed to "non-scarcity", because that's what it is... when an object's supply so greatly outstrips demand that value no longer becomes an issue. Do note that post-scarcity is not the same as infinite. Air is a post-scarcity resource... but it is not infinite. However, I definitely agree to your point. Capitalism seems to collapse on itself once demand too greatly outstrips supply. It also seems to start falling apart in the opposite scenario as post-scarcity is achieved... at least that's how most companies portray digital piracy. It seems like there is only a certain window of the supply/demand ratio in which true capitalism is capable of thriving... once the balance tips, it falls over with the scale.

icekatze wrote:

There may always be work that people [b]can[/b] do, but I have learned to never say never when it comes to technology, so I do not accept the axiom that there will always be work that people [b]need[/b] to do. Someone already mentioned the shift away from agriculture as an example, and there is a difference in necessity between producing food and greeting people that walk in the door at WalMart. When you take into account the decimation of the "third world's" agricultural self sustainability and their booming debt that started in the mid 1900s it seems clear that the concept of money representing goods and services rendered has fallen by the wayside in favor of a view of money as a governing device, where authority figures reward people for a desired behavior. At which point people may start to ask "why is one person's desire more important than another's," or they may accept the authoritarian line and shift their discontent onto a scapegoat. So it is my estimation that whether we transition to a post scarcity economy, or are buried under the weight of increasing resource scarcity, we will need to move away from a system where money is viewed as a reward for good behavior and towards a system where money is viewed as a direct representation of a reduction in system wide need/desire.

I think the problem isn't so much that money is a reward. The problem is that money itself is a scarce mechanic meant for a system of scarcity. This is the innate problem with the transition to post-scarcity... how do you govern effectively-infinite resources with finite mechanics and values? The current problem with money is the nature of debt and negative monetary values. Despite money having a finite limit (set by it's printers and distributors), people are able to borrow to have more money than they should be capable of. This would theoretically be fine and good if the buck stopped at the individual person (with investors being the external remedy to debt), however our economy has been getting worse because the producer of our currency (the governments) are also capable of borrowing, despite being the top-tier of the economic model. They are borrowing from nothing (the effective means that we create our national debt), or from each other (through treasury bonds). Furthermore, the system of debt-interest ensures that people within the negative will have their negative values increased, while those who hold their debts have their positives increased, with no other moving factors involved. This simply furthers the inequality more and more. The end-result is a model that has no real means of getting back into equilibrium.

root wrote:

root@Singularity and unemployment [hr] I've been viewing the tendency to use money as a governing device and reward for socially condoned behavior as evidence that we are living in a partially reputation-based economy, and just don't acknowledge it. A dollar of Warren Buffets money, for instance, is worth more than a dollar of Crazy Jim the local schizophrenic's money. They can both purchase the same types of things for their dollar, but since Warren has so much more of it, when he moves it in the market, the world follows. As for capitalism working better without scarcity, the definition of economics that I was taught was the study of the distribution of scarce resources, but a quick check of the Wikipeida page on economics shows that this is no longer the working definition. I will have to take some time to review my information and see if my arguments still hold water.

I don't totally agree with this. A dollar is a dollar, no matter what. The market only pays attention when Warren Buffet moves a large sum of cash... but the market doesn't observe when he buys himself a soda at the local machine. In that same vein, the market would probably notice if Crazy Jim suddenly dropped 7 figures on the stock market. People pay attention to the flow of money no matter who is pushing it.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Not all resources can be infinite-not all are based on simple mineral/energy source. For instance real-estate areas which are governed by laws. There would not be infinite real estate areas for all who desire them. There never will be infinite real Malibu Beaches or Hawaii for all who want them.

Simulspace would disagree with you. And while many people might have more desire for "real" land, this desire will lessen as the differences between reality and virtuality lessen.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

And energy resource would remain finite despite all forseen advances in technology. Plus energy prices and availability is not governed only by technology-but by laws and regulations.

Post-scarcity isn't actual infinite resources... it's resources which completely outstrip any capability of demand. Even software and digital music isn't an "infinite" resource. You are limited by the total amount of digital storage capacity on the planet... but what are the odds that someone wants so many copies of "Cotton Eyed Joe" that it fills up all that space and then some? In that same vein, we could theoretically reach a point where our ability to harvest energy completely outstrips our demand for that energy. Sure, if we never leave the system we will eventually run out when our star runs out of power 5 billion years from now... but is that really an issue that we need to worry about now? That's what post-scarcity is.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Completely incorrect. Experience teaches me that when more deregulation happens and less government, it simply means more unemployment and raise of oligarchy. Government intervention is necessary for functional large society. And if government is weak-organised crime of unofficial corrupt connections will replace its functions.

Amen to that. People are under the illusion that regulation is a bad thing because we use the term "regulation" rather than the more common parlance... law. That's what a regulation is... a law concerning business practices. When people talk about de-regulation, they might as well be talking about "eliminating law". People need to stop looking at free markets with wide eyes because it has the word "free" in the name... the correct term is [u]lawless market[/u] because that's what it is.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

That sentence contradicts itself-without government nobody would protect your individual rights from organised mobs of individuals. A society where I have to know how to use a gun or my life depends on a mob favouring me or not is a dystopia not utopia...

Agreed. The right to bear arms should be seen as the last resort of personal defense... the point at which people must fend for themselves. Instead, people look at it like it should be the first resort of defense. This isn't the case. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution wasn't made so that Americans could defend themselves all the time... it was made so that Americans could defend themselves [i]when they couldn't rely on the government to do it[/i].

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

There numerous economical commodities not bound to rules of energy or raw materials. Furthermore energy will likely never be free as its production is costly no matter what technology you will use in near future.

Not true. Solar collectors and wind generators that utilize nanotechnology for self-maintenance would have no need for extra cost beyond manufacture and installation. Future technologies might even produce self-sustained farms, power networks and computer systems. At that point, what would the real need for cost in energy be, unless our output was not high enough to meet demand?

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Unless by simulspace you mean simulating another alternative realites in branches of our universe, no it would not.

Elaborate how a potentially-limitless number of virtual worlds could be limited so much that it has a demand issue....

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

And that is why artificial diamonds are valued more than real ones-oh wait...No it will not, no matter how virtual reality looks like reality,deep down people will know it is not real, can be duplicated by anybody, while only special few-above others-have the "real thing". And humans are quite interested in being special.Humans who will posses real items, real estate always will be seen as richer than those who have to use what all the others use. There is no law of nature that demands that humans will value virtual more over real. That what is scarce becomes valuable to humans.

Artificial diamonds are diamonds... unless the producer admits they were created in a lab, there is no way to tell that they are or aren't. So yeah, they are effectively the same value as "real" diamonds. In fact, they are of more value... artificial diamonds are actually better for scientific endeavors, and carry a much higher demand in that field than mined diamonds. If it weren't for the propaganda used by diamond companies like De Beers, every diamond would probably be worth a whole lot less. You are correct that virtual will not be valued [i]over[/i] real. My point was that at some point, their values would match, and scarcity would not be an issue. People wouldn't mind having an artificial plot of land... some might even prefer it, if they like the idea of owning a place that doesn't have to play by the laws of physics.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Oh, thank you-you now made the odds real by mentioning it ;) There are many, many people who would do such things:for kicks, out of spite, out pranking and so on.Not to mention other motives-like trying to multiply your existance to infinite numbers.

It would be impossible to fill every hard drive on the planet as a prank. You'd have to access every single hard drive that [i]doesn't have internet access[/i], as well as every encrypted drive. Unless you feel like breaking the encryption on every single system on Earth as part of some pointless prank (which would probably take so many years to accomplish, that the computers you had been preparing to prank will have been long replaced a dozen times over), the chances of that are nil. All you've proven is that space is a potentially scarce resource (not likely, considering how low costs on hard drives have already gotten), not the files and information held within.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

What makes you think wind farms and solar collectors are sufficient energy sources? They wouldn't even support our current energy demands without mega-engineering projects covering much of Earth's surface.

With slightly more than 10% of the Saharan desert covered with solar farms, we could power the whole planet at its current demand rate. Considering the average rate of energy demand growth, 100% of the Saharan desert covered in farms would last us almost half a millennia, by which time I'm sure we will have found other places to plant those panels (in orbit, at Lagrange points, etc).

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

The issue with regulation is one of moderation. In the US, the average person commits 3 crimes a DAY (not counting traffic violations). We have so many laws, it is physically impossible to know them all. This situation exacts a cost on business, because it creates a real regulation risk. Higher risk means the business is less likely to be attempted. Regulations also increase cost - your device must meet X and Y specifications, or you must spend X amount of money meeting all the HR, tax and other legal requirements. I'm meeting this right now with my wife's business. Her business must meet a higher threshold now for us to declare it on taxes, hire employees, buy space, etc., because the cost in regulations requires we hire a specialist JUST to deal with that, and eats our profits. We're about a year to six months behind where we would be otherwise because the cost of regulation forces a more conservative stance. On the flip side, lack of regulation can also increase costs. People don't want to build aquaculture farms offshore because no one will officially recognize their 'stake' in establishing infrastructure there. Too much of one is as bad as the other.

Agreed. But when you say it like that, I don't think anyone would disagree that we should get rid of the ludicrous number of minor infractions that do nothing to keep us safe, while enforcing the real and useful laws that form the backbone of society. The same is true with corporate law; the best should be kept while the trivial elements are trashed.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

Regarding diamonds and luxuries, artificial diamonds bring in less because the process of making them doesn't create the same lustre as natural diamonds. Once our techniques are better, they will be comparable. But that isn't the point. The point is there are some things which will always suffer shortages, even if that shortage is 'backstory'. Not everyone can own the Crown Jewels. Even if I own a copy, it's not THE Crown Jewels. It doesn't have that backstory. So there will be competition for those luxury items (including living space - construction is limited by time).

At some point, our ability to produce counterfeits will supercede our ability to detect counterfeits (we're getting really close already, and it has happened before in some cases; look up the Superdollar for an example). At that point, arguing which of something is the "original" becomes a triviality. It's much like the whole philosophical argument on forking... what does it matter if you are all identical, and if certain measures are taken, there's no way to tell which is which. Backstory is nice, but it's not encoded in the item... the crown jewels do not have some magic essence within them that traps their history in such a way that they cannot ever be reproduced. We're fooling ourselves if we believe otherwise.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

However, most of the things you will reasonably want are available at little actual cost. Food, clothes, entertainment, (virtual) space, sex, all are availble for a modest cost in time. What is the result? Looking at economic data, most likely people will get greedy and ask for more. Most of us have one nice suit. If we got that for free, we'd want 10 nice suits. It's how this brand of apes works. We collect what we need. Once we have it, we collect more than we can use, instinctively. I'm not fully satisfied with how EP handles this. Except in virtual worlds, until humans are modified to remove this instinct, or it is enforced by a governing body, people will continue to hoard, and if that means I get two and you get none, well clearly you should have worked harder.

Actually, I don't think hoarding will be as common as you do. So long as people have the means to produce, I doubt they'll have the urge to hoard. That's not to say that they won't recycle their nice suit into a new nice suit rather than clean it, but that as long as people feel secure that they will have food thanks to their fabricators, they will have no reason to gather as much. Granted, they may very well start hoarding the raw materials they use to produce such items... that's a very real possibility. But as you mentioned, it's nothing that a few reasonable regulations can't manage.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

People are happy for their delusions. Yes, we can make copies of a Picaso which are absolutely indistinguishable from the original, but people will still pay more for, and demand, the original. That's just how it works. If ANYONE can have one, it's not worth anything any more.

That's kind of the point. In a post-scarcity scenario, people want not out of rarity, but desire, and demand quickly outstrips supply. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can't [i]fake[/i] rarity to produce cost. Digital music downloads are essentially post-scarcity, and in any other circumstance everyone should have unlimited access to said music. But through digital rights management, combined with a legal and ad-based campaign against "piracy", they've maintained (for now) the illusion that their product is still scarce, and therefore still worth purchasing.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

Regarding hoarding, I think you make a strong argument. I really don't know though. Your assumption seems to be that people will be content hoarding virtual stuff, but when it comes to physical stuff, they'll be able to say 'enough!' But if I have the resources to take space from you, is there a reason I would decide to refabricate my one car every month, rather than to own four different cars in my massive garage (your old house)?

No, I'm saying that at some point, virtual and physical products will be at least equal in value to the average consumer. This is a trend you already see today. Many people used to be hesitant in purchasing CDs, saying that the product quality was inferior to a record version. Since the early 2000s, it is a small community that continues to hold that idea, while the wider public has accepted the idea that the digital version of a song is an equally valued product. Today, we see this transition occurring from physical books to ebooks, as people see that the digital version of a publication is equal, and even sometimes superior to (in such cases as magazines which can contain video clips) a physical copy. While a traditional mindset regarding hoarding may persist sometime after post-scarcity is achieved, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will linger forever. You might own four different cars at first, but it will become a trivial pursuit when smart-cars that can reconfigure their design crop up. You might carry spares of everything for as long as you're afraid that your current version could be destroyed, but you'll cease when you get accustomed to self-maintaining, self-repairing devices. These mindsets are potentially transient in nature, tied to the way that our world works today.